Talk:Financial Empowerment Act
On #5 - activating the lockbox - I agree wholeheartedly. I would also reverse any tax cuts until the money borrowed from the working class has been repaid to said lockbox. Why socialism is the way to go? One more time, before fixing things, it would be nice to define what is broken. Then, before looking for solutions, we need to agree on some fundamental values that we would use to measure up our concepts. After this is done, we can discuss some proposals. The ten ideas sound to me like a socialistic program. Despite that some postulates have some merit, I am reluctant to join the discussion. Socialism has many supporters in the U.S., but this is not the ideology that the greatness of this country has been built upon. I experienced socialism first hand. I did my homework finding why it would never work, and I wrote a book about it. I suggest that before exploring 10 theses here, we would hear from the author, why he believes that socialism is the way to go. --HAK 03:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC) :What is socialism, then? Chadlupkes 05:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) ::Wrote a book about it, huh? That's one long fallacy! --ШΔLÐSΣИ 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC) ::::Encyclopedia Britannica gives this synopsis of socialism as a “''system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces. Socialism refers to both a set of doctrines and the political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice''.” ::::Definition at Wikipedia is good as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism ::::Before we can discuss any issues, we need to discuss what is better “''social control over property and distribution of income''” or “''individual determination and market forces''”. I would suggest that for answers we would not look into our heads or our hearts but on the library shelves. ::::The best book ever written about socialism is available online at no charge, http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html --HAK 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC) :::::So it's either social control or individual control, with no balance allowed. People are either allowed and encouraged to work together, or we're all on our own. The debate is between those who support collaboration and cooperation and those who believe that competition is more effective. Take this far enough, and democracy itself becomes questionable, where people supporting individual control not believing in democracy because of the 'tyranny of the majority'. And that goes against the vision of founders of the country. :::::The needs of a society do not trump the needs of individuals. But the needs of individuals also don't trump the needs of society. It must be a balance, and that's what we need to get back to. Chadlupkes 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC) You erroneously take “''social control''” as “''collaboration''”. They are not synonyms. Free individuals will collaborate one with each other in the way that this would benefit all parties involved, and they will do it only if it would be beneficial to them. Individuals under “''social control''” will follow the orders if it is in their benefit, or out of fear. If “''social control''” is against their particular interests, individuals will try to circumvent it. --HAK 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC) :Well, I'm glad we got that out of the way. I'm much more interested in collaboration than any type of social controls. If we're talking about laws that restrict liberties, I'll voice concerns and expect to see an analysis of opportunity cost. If we're talking about laws that restrict liberties for the sake of security, I'll throw it back. If we're talking about laws that open doors of opportunity and cost a little bit, then that's where collaboration comes in. We need to agree about our priorities and find a way to meet our goals and expectations. Let's talk about Education, Health Care, Immigration, and the middle class. Let's talk about World Peace and Climate Change. No, seriously. What are the problems, what are our priorities, and what are our goals? :Does that sound like socialism? I am not a socialist. I'm an American. Chadlupkes 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC) :::You are perfectly correct, you are an American. Your views, with some minor fluctuations, represent the political views of the majority of Americans. The same, you are a socialist, as most of Americans do. Lenin cackles in his tomb. :::Your ancestors arrived here because this land offered freedom to pursue happiness. Today, you and many other Americans claim the right to happiness. In order to get what you feel you deserve, you have no problem in claiming the right to take away some wealth from your compatriots that are more fortunate than you are. :::It is not important that you may want to take away just a little bit. The problem is that as soon as your claim is getting legitimacy, it changes the fundamental values that this country was built upon. This is the source of our most problems today; too much of “''social control''”. Unfortunately, most Americans, you among them, do not see this connection. Quite opposite, seeing the problem, they tend to add new rules, further restricting liberties of the most entrepreneurial among us, and giving not earned benefits to the rest. :::By the way, I invited you to discuss immigration, Illegal immigration in the US. You did not respond. --HAK 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC) ::::No, I haven't responded on Immigration yet. You've been writing on it for a while, and I'm still reading. Immigration is not a strong issue for me. My grandfather came here from Sweden, and all of my ancestors were immigrants, as you say. Chadlupkes 05:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Can we focus on Immigration? In course of writing my texts on immigration and later during the discussion, I educated myself fairly on this subject. I need some study to speak with the same level of confidence about Education or Health Care. Furthermore, immigration will be a hot item on the first session of the new Congress. It is in the news recently as well. In my opinion, Immigration mess is much easier to resolve than Education or Health Care. However, in course of doing so we may learn something that might help us to deal with other problems. Consequently, can we focus on Immigration? --HAK 16:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC) :You created your post as an article, which looks unfinished. I've been leaving it alone because the subject is so complicated. Let's use the forums to develop the conversation. Chadlupkes 17:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC) ::My article is a coherent and finished statement. However, it has references to other texts, discussing the issue in detail. ::If you feel that there is a better form to manage our discussion about Immigration, please feel free to move my text to another space. Honestly, I still have difficulties to understand the format of the discussions here. Unless – what I suspect – it is still in the formation stage.--HAK 19:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC) :::Your suspicion is correct. We're going to be in development stage for a while. Chadlupkes 19:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC) :::::In my real life assignments, I turned a chaos into organization on numerous occasions. We may take a discussion about Immigration, and – besides discussing immigration – use it as a practicing ground to establish some creative format for public discussions of major political issues. :::::In the meantime, Merry Christmas to everyone. --HAK 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)